If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Feasible Successor - more or less?

Well, I'm having some trouble grokking the meaning of feasible successor. Both version 6 and version 7 of the book define a feasible successor in no uncertain terms:

In order for a route to be a feasible successor, its advertised distance must be less than the feasible distance of the successor route.

Now, my understanding seems directly at odds with this statement, since the current successor is, in fact, already the route with the least distance. Therefore, a feasible successor must have more distance to the destination network, and not less.

The advertised distance, AD (which is better to call the RD, reported distance, so as not to confuse it with the other AD, administrative distance), meets the feasibilty requirement by having a RD that is less than the current FD - its needs to pass that requirement to be installed as a backup in the topo table.

I say NEEDS to be smaller because putting a route in the topo table (backup route) that has a RD that is already greater than the currently installed successors total route could lead to a routing loop, if it were installed as the new successor. So the RD must be less than the FD for a route to even be considered as a backup route in the topo table. Again, this is the feasibility requirement.

I would hit the cisco docs for more details on how routing loops can occur by using a route that has RD > FD (successor route) - because frankly...I can't tell you...I only know they can

your are confusing the distance reported by the neighbor (RD) with the total distance from the originating router to the destination router, which includes the jump to the neighbor router PLUS the jump from the neighbor to the destination --- and THAT is going to be larger, if a FS is taken from the topo.

RD = cost of neighbor to destination network (must be smaller than successor TOTAL distance, and it sits in the topo table as a potential backup)

FD = the metric of the SUCCESSOR ROUTE, which include the jump from him to the neighbor, PLUS the neighbors jump to the destination network - his RD.

Thanks for keeping me on track here... I finally had to go look at the Cisco white paper for EIGRP to get it clear in my head. (Complete with 8x10 color glossy pictures and circles and arrows )

What I didnt grok is that the comparison is made between a single feasible and a bunch of advertised/reported. Once I got that through my thick head, the book was perfectly clear. And perfectly correct.

William

Originally Posted by ciscodaze

your are confusing the distance reported by the neighbor (RD) with the total distance from the originating router to the destination router, which includes the jump to the neighbor router PLUS the jump from the neighbor to the destination --- and THAT is going to be larger, if a FS is taken from the topo.

RD = cost of neighbor to destination network (must be smaller than successor TOTAL distance, and it sits in the topo table as a potential backup)

FD = the metric of the SUCCESSOR ROUTE, which include the jump from him to the neighbor, PLUS the neighbors jump to the destination network - his RD.

[QUOTE=william;1 9817]Thanks for keeping me on track here... I finally had to go look at the Cisco white paper for EIGRP to get it clear in my head. (Complete with 8x10 color glossy pictures and circles and arrows )

hey man...if it wasnt for pretty pictures with circles and arrows, Id still be studying for my network+

a picture is worth a thousand acronyms.

Kevin NET+SEC+A+CCNA'All that is not eternal is eternally out of date' ~ C.S. Lewis

HAHA! I had this all wrong even though I did have pretty darn good logic it was the wrong one I was making it way to complicated this is so easy to understand I am laughing at myself now.

The trick to all of this is understanding 4 terms and being very careful to understand the english of it all... lol

First we have, well hex just let me qoute Mr Lammle he could not have said it any better:

"Feasible distance (FD) This is the best metric among all paths to a remote network, including the metric to the neighbor that is advertising that remote network.

Reported/advertised distance (AD) This is the metric of a remote network, as reported by a neighbor"

next we have to look at rules for Successor and Feasible successor I will qoute Mr Lammle again as its pretty much spot on:

"Successor A successor route (think successful!) is the best route to a remote network."

"Feasible successor A feasible successor is a path whose advertised distance is less than the feasible distance of the current successor, and it is considered a backup route."

If you read Mr Lammle qoutes I posted above and think about what it says you dont need the cisco website its not that complex you just have to read those carefully.

FD is the best route (start to finish) thats what our successor uses and its in the routing table if that goes down if we are using EIGRP we can use the Feasible succesor.

To be a Feasible successor is simple we are weighing the AD against the FD and the AD better be lower than the FD because if its not we could well have a loop. the AD is the the total path its just what Mr Lammle said in his qoutes the path from the neighbor router reporting it to the remote network.

The FD is total path from start to finish.
AD is just from neighbor router to finish.

Its late and I am not the most efficient writer but I hope I make sense its really simple.